« yet more commentary on ted rall being a festering sore on the face of mankind | Main | redecorating »

can't we just guard babies and small furry animals?

Well, what did they expect?

Fifteen volunteers from the first 200 shields are moving into a bunker at the South Baghdad Electricity Plant in an effort to deter attack by America and its allies. However some of the shields yesterday questioned Iraq's selection of the power plant, after discovering that it is situated next to an army base.

Did they really think Saddam was this nice, pleasant man who wasn't going to use the shields for all they're worth? Please tell me that people are not this naive.

Yesterday Iraqi officials gave way to pressure from disgruntled volunteers, and agreed to place some at the schools, hospitals and old people's homes where they had hoped to defend the civilian population against possible attack.

Interesting tactic. It's unlikely the U.S. will set out to bomb schools, hospitals and old people's homes. (And how would they know which homes belonged to old people and which didn't? And why are only old people worthy of human shields? What about the children?)

When the bombing starts, it's a safe bet the targets will be - gasp! - army bases!

See, the shields just want to make a statement. They don't want to actually put themselves in harm's way. They don't really mean it when they say they would die for their cause. They are, like the celebrities in their "No War" t-shirts, putting on a grand show for everyone.

I wouldn't be suprised to turn on my tv in the midst of the bombing and see some of those human shields being used as what their name implies - but as shields for officers of the Iraqi army.

Stupid is as stupid does. You want to put your life on the line for your country's enemy? You deserve whatever fate is handed to you, then.

Bombs away.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference can't we just guard babies and small furry animals?:

» Can they be this naive? Yup. from Inoperable Terran
The human shields are shocked, SHOCKED, that Saddam might be using them for impure motives. Also, they think we're going [Read More]

Comments

That is funny.

What is the benevolent Saddam doing with an ARMY base? Must have been from the old regime.

Funny, I've been saying this.

The Iraqi army must know exactly which installations we're going to bomb. They know which soldiers are going to die.

They could choose to have all of the human shield die, or none of them or exactly 37.3%.

I've been wondering what they were going to choose. Certainly posting a western idiot at a hospital is good propaganda because it implies that hospitals are American targets. I've been wondering why they shields are stupid enough to believe that the US is going to target civilians anyway.

I've also been wondering how many of them are going to be willing to stand next to a bunch of ground to air missiles that we're going to take out first.

I can't imagine that they really went to die, more likely they went to have someting to brag about when the war is over. Here's a post from LGF that's so funny that I've cut it out and sent it around. The original article was about a "human shield" who, seemingly missed the point of being a "human shield" and was getting on a plane back to England or someplace like that:

...
I think a good part of the allure is for Lefties to build up their credentials - putting their asses on the line, or at least positioning themselves that they can CLAIM that they were willing to die for the cause.

After all, communists and socialists in the West who joined the brigades fighting Franco - had on their Lefty resume` (assuming they survived not only Franco, the Germans, but the communist liquidation of the socialists) - a credential as honored as a USA soldier getting the Distinguished Service Medal..."He fought in the Lincoln Brigade".

I suppose a difference is that the ernest volunteers in Spain's Civil War actually DID think that they could make a difference and actually DID fight.

The human shield's motives are different, IMO. They are doing this not to help the "innocent Iraqi babies" but to help their own standing with other Lefties...even rise to leadership positions from showing off their courage. The are Full of Themselves, and hope to return to their peers with their activist credentials enhanced and be honored with glory and prestige on their return home.

...

But for the human shields that play their cards right and pontificate from positions of relative safety...who find US, UK, or OZ troops to safeguard them when Saddam's troops are routed, they will return with stories of pacifist heroism, American atrocity tall tales, and laurels - from the stay at home useful idiots.

"Yes, there I was, guarding a school house. Three imperialist Bradley vehicles emerged from the dust to target and destroy the schoolhouse loaded with innocent Iraqi children. I faced down the American commander with my cross and Qu'ran..yes, me...a little enlightened white woman...The American was frothing at the mouth in his almost sexual, white oppressor male urge to kill...but he melted before the courage of a lesbian Canadian vegetarian from CBC! And so I saved 80 precious Iraqi children from an unimaginable fate!"

Only spoiled by one Canadian skeptic...."I heard that you were actually saved by 3 Bradleys from a mob of Iraqis chasing you"

"Ah, that was AFTER I saved the children. The Iraqis were right to try and kill any Westerner after what the spit American imperialists did. I deserved deathat their hands as much as any American or American stooge."

"Wow! You were so brave!"

Apparently some of the brighter drooling idiots have caught on to the fact that they about to get their rewards at the hands of the USAF and have decided to bug out. The loss of the others will improve the gene pool in more ways than one.

1. Sure, human shields is a silly thing to do. But 2. żou can't be that naive to believe the USAF will not make it to "accientally" bomb also civilians. Theyalways do? It's what Bomber Harris said in WWII about bombing germany"You have to bomb the civil-buildings for the peoples morals running down." Or so, you get the picture. So in all stupidity they do have a point there

Lilli: if an accident happens -- ie, if a missile meant for an army base or other military installation is unintentionally fired at the wrong target (because bombers are human and make mistakes too, or they could have gotten the wrong target info) and blows up an orphanage full of babies and human shields instead -- what does that have to do with the idea of "human shields" are "protection"? Let me spell it out in simpler terms for the logically impaired:

You
cannot
protect
anyone
from
an
accident

The most a "human shield" can do is absorb some (a minuscule amount) of the blast. In other words, the presence of the human shields in Iraq is useless as a practical gesture -- it's symbolic only, and its symbolism that plays into Saddam Hussein's hands. After all, you could consider his entire civilian population to be human shields. If it's wrong to blow up a Western European or American war tourist, then it's wrong to blow up a native of that country as well. What the "human shield" faction are really saying is that Western lives are more important than Iraqi civilian lives. The "human shields" think their mere presence will be enough to stave off the war, when an entire population of civilians was not. This is racism, pure and simple, on the part of the human shields and their many fans.

Oh, and thanks for the cynical attack on the US Air Force. Yeah, they can't wait to blow up them babies! Did you learn everything about the US armed forces by watching Apocalypse Now over and over again?

Look , this "human shield" business is so far off base from a law-of-war perspective as to be unworthy of attention. If a combatant intentionally takes cover behind a protected person of thing, he is a war criminal. If a protected person intentionally shields a military target, he cannot transfer his protected status to the target, rather, he loses that status and becomes not merely a combatant, but an unlawful combatant--a war criminal. The situation is most analogous to misuse of the red cross insignia. A soldier who makes tactical use of a hospital is a war criminal, as is a doctor who intentionally sites his medical facility to tactically assist a combatant. The law of war is not a children's schoolyard game. These idiots should have looked this stuff up before they went over.

Lilli,
We are not going to be targeting the morale of the Iraqi people. We are going to target the Iraqi army and the Iraqi leadership. The British adopted the German morale target in WWII simply because Bomber Command was unable to hit anything smaller than a whole city by night bombing. The USAF is not so limited, even without JDAMs. To miss this point, and continue to spout nonsense about "carpet bombing" or "millions of civilians killed" as so many among the anti-war crowd do, is deliberate, lying, anti-American propaganda.

And, as any even casual student of military history will know, one of the lessons learned from WWII was that bombing to destroy morale rarely, if ever, works.

It CERTAINLY doesn't have an effect that comes even CLOSE to the effect that those same munitions would have if directed at REAL targets.

Add to that that we already HAVE the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people, trying to "terrify" them would be counter-productive and a complete waste of ordnance.

Lilli, really, you should get your nose out of that Chomsky book and start reading some REAL literature.

Lilli is immersed in the unreasoning depths of EU newspeak, but it's hard for her not to be -- she lives in Germany, near as I can figure.

The exposure to rationality here on Michele's blog might do her some good...

I would guess that, yes, people can be that naive. If they weren't, would they have gone over there in the first place?

Looks like they might have gotten a bit of a wake up call though!

Misha's comment reminds me of a line I just read about the Battle of Britain: The terror bombing was bad but not unbearable, and every bomb that fell on London did not fall on a Spitfire factory.

As a 26-year USAF pilot vet, I'd just like to tell you you're DEAD WRONG, Lilli.